Preemptive measures: A new paradigm in the counter against terrorism

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Criminal Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran

Abstract

Abstract
Today, in restoring the order ruptured by terrorist acts, the mission of the legal systems and governments actuality is not summarized to the legislation of punitive laws and the constitution of criminal responses after the occurrence of terrorist crimes. But in order to control terrorism, a new strategy has been presented in legal literature, and legislative regimes have been equipped with legitimate mechanisms called preemptive strategies before the occurrence of terrorist crimes. Accordingly, with regard to the ineffectiveness of punitive-based strategies after the occurrence of terrorist attacks, the main question of this article is: what are the Preemptive measures in confronting terrorism and their nature, components And the basics of justification? In trying to answer to the question, this article uses a descriptive-documentary research method. Based on the results of this study, preemptive approaches of containment of terrorism have a preventive, punitive, retributive, restrictive and obligatory nature, and their components include legal status, early intervention in imminent danger, non-entry into the criminal proceedings and exceptional which would be taken against suspects of terrorist crimes. Preemptive measures have justification bases such as precautionary, risk management, difficulty in prosecuting perpetrators, transforming the concept of liability and reducing damages

Keywords

References

1. بصیری، محمدعلی؛ آقا‌محمدی، زهرا (1396)، «آینده‌پژوهی خاورمیانه طی سه دهه آینده؛ تحلیل روندهای مقابله با تروریسم در سطح بین‌الملل»، فصلنامه تحقیقات سیاسی بین‌المللی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شهرضا، ش 31، صص 116-86 .
2. خبیری، کابک؛ دربندی، مارال (1390)، «حقوق بین‌المللی و مسئله تروریسم»، فصلنامه علوم سیاسی و روابط بین‌الملل، ش 17، صص 178-151.
3. سلیمی‌، حجت (1397)، «تروریسم و نظام عدالت کیفری: دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی یا دادگاه مختلط»، پژوهشنامه حقوق کیفری، ش 18، صص 209-183.
4. شریفی‌طرازکوهی، حسین؛ شبستانی، علی (1390)، «مقابله با تروریسم در پرتو سیاست‌‌‌‌های اتخاذی جمهوری اسلامی ایران»، مجله سیاست دفاعی، سال 19، ش 76، صص 54-9.
5. صابر، محمود؛ صادقی، ولی‌الله (1392)، «آموزه‌شناسی مسئله صلاحیت دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی در رسیدگی به تروریسم، تعالی حقوق»، ش 4، صص 167-147.
6. طالقانی، حسین؛ نمامیان، پیمان (1392)، «اعمال دفاع پیش‌دستانه در مبارزه با تروریسم؛ نفی یا اثبات مشروعیت، مطالعات بین‌المللی پلیس»، ش 16، صص 112-95.
7. عالی‌پور، حسن (1388)، «امنیت ملی و حقوق متهم؛ مطالعه تطبیقی آئین دادرسی در قبال اقدامات تروریستی»، فصلنامه مطالعات راهبردی، سال دوازدهم، ش 1، صص 44-5.
8. مهدوی‌پور، اعظم؛ شهرانی‌کرانی، نجمه (1393)، «امنیتی شدن جرم شناسی: راهبردها و آثار آن برحقوق کیفری»، پژوهشنامه حقوق کیفری، سال 5، ش 9، صص 188- 159.
9. نمامیان، پیمان (1390)، «صلاحیت قضایی دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی در رسیدگی به تروریسم»، مطالعات راهبردی، ش 51، صص 59- 84.
 10. Anderson Q.C., David (2016), The Terrorism Acts In 2015: Report of The Independent Reviewer on The Operation of The Terrorism Act 2000 And Part 1 Of the Terrorism Act 2006. Decemmber 2016, London: The Stationery Office.
11. Anderson, David (2012), Control Orders In 2011; Final Report of Independent Reviewer on The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, London: The Stationery Office.
12. ANZCTC: Australia New Zealand Counter- Terrorism Committee (2017), National Counter- Terrorism Plan, 4The Edittion, Australia: Melbourne.
13. Ashworth, Andrew; Zedner, Lucia (2014), Preventive Justice,First Edition, Impression 1, Oxford University Press.
14. Bandyopadhyay, Subhayu; Sandler, Todd (2009), “The Interplay between Preemptive and Defensive Counterterrorism Measures: A Two-Stage Game”, Research Division Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Paper Series, 1-32.
15. Bothe, Michael (2003), “Terrorism and the Legality of Pre-emptive Force”, EJIL Vol. 14, No. 2, pp 227-240.
16. Byers, Michael (2002), “Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes: Terrorism, The Use of Force and International Law After 11 September”, ICLQ vol 51, pp 401-414.
17. Cole, David (2014), The Difference Prevention Makes: Regulating Preventive Justice, Crim Law and Philos, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, Dc: USA, DOI 10.1007/s11572-013-9289-7. PP 1-20.
18. Donkin, Susan (2011), The Evolution of Pre-emption in Anti-Terrorism Law: A Cross Jurisdictional Examination. PhD diss, ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Arts, Education and Law Griffith University.
19. Glennon, Michael J (2005), Preemptive War Reduces Terrorism. Are efforts to reduce terrorism successful? United States of America: Gale and Greenhaven Press, www.gale.com, pp 36-43.
20. Lacey, Nicola (2015), “Book review: preventive justice”, British Journal of Criminology, Available in LSE Research Online: April 2015, DOI: 10,1093/bjc/azv 015, pp 1-3.
21. McCulloch, Jude; Pickering, Sharon (2009), “Pre-Crime and Counter- Terrorism: Imagining Future Crime in the War on Terror”, BRIT. J. CRIMINOL, 49, PP 628–645.
22. OHCHR: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2008), Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism (Fact Sheet No. 32), United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva.
23. OSCE: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (2014), Preventing Terrorism and Countering Violent Extremism and Radicalization that Lead to Terrorism: A Community-Policing Approach. Vienna.
24. OSCE: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (2011), Preventing and Combating Terrorism: The Human Dimension, Annual Security Review Conference, Vienna.
25. Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Parliament of the United Kingdom, www.legislation.gov.uk.
26. Reisman, W. Michael; Armstrong, Andrea (2006), “The Past and Future of the Claim of Preemptive Self-Defense”, Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 957. Vol. 100, pp 550- 524.
27. Sabir, Rizwaan (2014), Understanding Counter-Terrorism Policy and Practice in the UK since 9/11, A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Bath Department of Social and Policy Sciences.
28. Smith, Imran. O (2006), “Terrorism, pre-emptive self defence and state interests: what challenges for contemporary international legal order?” Amicus Curiae, Issue 67, pp 14-24.
29. Stern, Jessica; Wiener, Jonathan B. (2006), “Precaution against Terrorism, Journal of Risk Research”, Vol. 9, No. 4, 393–447.
30. Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. Parliament of the United Kingdom, www.legislation.gov.uk.
31. Tulich, Tamara (2012), “Prevention and Pre‐emption in Australia’s Domestic Anti‐terrorism Legislation, International journal for crime, justice and social democracy”, IJCJ, 1(1), pp 52-64.
32. United Nations Publication (2009), Handbook on Criminal Justice Responses to Terrorism, CRIMINAL JUSTICE HANDBOOK SERIES, New York.
33. Walker, Clive (2013), “The Reshaping of Control Orders in The Uited Kingdom: Time for A Fairer Go”, Australia, Melbourne University Law Review, Vol 37, pp143-188.
34. White, Lisa (2008), “Australia: Terrorism Laws: Control Orders”. The Law Library of Congress, www. law.gov pp 1-5.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics